News credibility

[Philosophy Explorer]

Often I see rounded numbers used in technology news (e.g. this breakthrough speeds up the process 10 times) which makes me wonder how reliable the news really is? (I did see a case where it was reported that the process actually speeded up about 10.5 times and the headline said it was 10 times).

Before someone else says something, I'm well aware of the problems with peer review and the influence of government and big industry too. It's worthwhile to try to read all you can on the subject.

PhilX

[-1-]

Often I see rounded numbers used in technology news (e.g. this breakthrough speeds up the process 10 times) which makes me wonder how reliable the news really is? (I did see a case where it was reported that the process actually speeded up about 10.5 times and the headline said it was 10 times).

Before someone else says something, I'm well aware of the problems with peer review and the influence of government and big industry too. It's worthwhile to try to read all you can on the subject.

PhilX

Zero is the easiest number to hit on the keyboard.

Readers go googly eyed when they see mixed numbers in a series. It reminds them of high school math, and that, in turn, makes them run for the hills.

Attention deficit. By the time you hit the third non-repeating digit in a series describing an actual count, your eyes get tired, your brain wants to go to sleep, and that's exactly what you do, if you are an honest, stand-up, righteous citizen of the world.

Numbers are for number monkeys.

Precise figures are for figure Nazis.

(ETC.)

[-1-]

It is easy to see shmafu numbers on the news, and on the pages of the Internet. I was in debate with somebody here amongst the users here, and he directed my attention to an article, which was written by an animal activist, trying to convince the readers that animal experiments don't work.

She, the writer of the piece I had been directed to to read, named all kinds of statistics: 140 experiments went wrong, 242 experiments with animals failed to show results for humans, 453 experiments had no effect, etc.

Then there was the big silence, which she (the writer of the internet article) should have presented, to make her stupid article meaningful: How many experiments did not fail? She did not say that. How many experiments did not go wrong? She did not say that. How many animal experiments had a high correlation with humans as subjects? Again, not a word.

Without these countering numbers, her figures lost their punch to an intelligent, thinking reader. I don't doubt that 140 experiments went wrong. She sounded studious and diligent, her research was probably well done. But how many experiments did not go wrong? 2013? 494382? 40,000?

Yet my debating partner who directed me to this article, I forgot who it was now, not a very bright person most likely, did not notice this. He or she (can't for the life of me remember who it was) completely ignored the fact that the figures the animal activist gave were completely meaningless without counter-numbers of the opposite effect to which she ought to have compared her findings to.

Again, you don't have to go to the papers to find people who don't know how to interpret numbers, or how to know when numbers can't be interpreted given the data presented. These innumerate people are all over the place.

[Philosophy Explorer]

It is easy to see shmafu numbers on the news, and on the pages of the Internet. I was in debate with somebody here amongst the users here, and he directed my attention to an article, which was written by an animal activist, trying to convince the readers that animal experiments don't work.

She, the writer of the piece I had been directed to to read, named all kinds of statistics: 140 experiments went wrong, 242 experiments with animals failed to show results for humans, 453 experiments had no effect, etc.

Then there was the big silence, which she (the writer of the internet article) should have presented, to make her stupid article meaningful: How many experiments did not fail? She did not say that. How many experiments did not go wrong? She did not say that. How many animal experiments had a high correlation with humans as subjects? Again, not a word.

Without these countering numbers, her figures lost their punch to an intelligent, thinking reader. I don't doubt that 140 experiments went wrong. She sounded studious and diligent, her research was probably well done. But how many experiments did not go wrong? 2013? 494382? 40,000?

Yet my debating partner who directed me to this article, I forgot who it was now, not a very bright person most likely, did not notice this. He or she (can't for the life of me remember who it was) completely ignored the fact that the figures the animal activist gave were completely meaningless without counter-numbers of the opposite effect to which she ought to have compared her findings to.

Again, you don't have to go to the papers to find people who don't know how to interpret numbers, or how to know when numbers can't be interpreted given the data presented. These innumerate people are all over the place.

What confidence level are you looking for? 95% would be typical. Or are you looking for 99%? (which means you would be running more costly and longer experiments).
Another way of putting this is what sized samples would you like the experiments to be? What would satisfy you?

PhilX

[thedoc]

PhilX

So much for dropping out.

[-1-]

What would satisfy you?

PhilX

A slice of lemon Meringue pie and a blow job. Those always do the trick.

To be serious, I am not looking for any confidence level. I just point out things, like you do, in the media which make no sense mathematically.

[-1-]

PhilX

So much for dropping out.

Jesus Christ, man, gimme a break. I went downtown to have coffee and read some poetry. I am not tied to the computer, and my computer does not follow me around.

[thedoc]

Jesus Christ, man, gimme a break.

? ? ? ? What was that all about?

[-1-]

Jesus Christ, man, gimme a break.

? ? ? ? What was that all about?

Well, you complained that I dropped out.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There is none any more, thanks to the US and its dumbing-down and 'media studies' garbage courses that have killed journalism.

[-1-]

There is none any more, thanks to the US and its dumbing-down and 'media studies' garbage courses that have killed journalism.

This is actually interesting.

Essentially, the media's credibility is rooted in faith, much like God's existence and also the value of the stocks on the stock market.

In the past people believed the media. The media earned it by being trustworthy.

Now the media is losing credibility, because people see holes in the news reporting.

But if people were dumbed down, they would not see the holes. This means that only the media producing personnel has been dumbed down.

Or maybe the media was already untrustworthy even in the times that people trusted it, only people were not so smart as to see through the holes.

So maybe the journalists' IQ and numerateness has been kept a constant, and people smartened up.

IN which case the gov can't be charged for dumbing down the masses; the gov can be charged for keeping the media people stupid as kites, and giving too much education and by osmosis, IQ, to the general population.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There is none any more, thanks to the US and its dumbing-down and 'media studies' garbage courses that have killed journalism.

This is actually interesting.

Essentially, the media's credibility is rooted in faith, much like God's existence and also the value of the stocks on the stock market.

In the past people believed the media. The media earned it by being trustworthy.

Now the media is losing credibility, because people see holes in the news reporting.

But if people were dumbed down, they would not see the holes. This means that only the media producing personnel has been dumbed down.

Or maybe the media was already untrustworthy even in the times that people trusted it, only people were not so smart as to see through the holes.

So maybe the journalists' IQ and numerateness has been kept a constant, and people smartened up.

IN which case the gov can't be charged for dumbing down the masses; the gov can be charged for keeping the media people stupid as kites, and giving too much education and by osmosis, IQ, to the general population.

That's funny. They don't see the 'holes', they see what suits them to see. You don't seriously think that people have learnt how to think critically do you?

[-1-]

That's funny. They don't see the 'holes', they see what suits them to see. You don't seriously think that people have learnt how to think critically do you?

WEll, no, I don't think that, you're right. I just don't know how people got to learn to see the holes, if the media never was reliable. I mean, in the past people did not see this, now they do. What made the difference?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

That's funny. They don't see the 'holes', they see what suits them to see. You don't seriously think that people have learnt how to think critically do you?

WEll, no, I don't think that, you're right. I just don't know how people got to learn to see the holes, if the media never was reliable. I mean, in the past people did not see this, now they do. What made the difference?

See my comments for answer.

[-1-]

That's funny. They don't see the 'holes', they see what suits them to see. You don't seriously think that people have learnt how to think critically do you?

WEll, no, I don't think that, you're right. I just don't know how people got to learn to see the holes, if the media never was reliable. I mean, in the past people did not see this, now they do. What made the difference?

See my comments for answer.

I saw your comments, and I agreed, but I still think that people are either smarter, or else what? because they all blame the same thing. If they each just saw what they wanted to see, then I'd see atheism, you would see American Yang-kee bashing, and Nick_A would see Socratic wisdom wrapped in Christian terms. But no, we don't see those, we all see the math incongruencies.

What gives with that? Who is the orchestrator of this harmonizing of seeing stupidity in journalism?

Sorry about the delayed reply, my girlfriend showed up so I will sign off for a while now.